Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1723 OF2017[Arising out of SLP(CRL) No 9549 of 2016]. PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS ..Appellants VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J1Leave granted. 2 2 By its judgment dated 25 November 2016, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants sought the quashing of a First Information Report registered against them on 18 June 2016 with the City C Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, Gujarat for offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code. The second respondent is the complainant. 3 In his complaint dated 18 June 2016, the second respondent stated that certain land admeasuring 17 vigha comprised in survey 1408 at Panakhan Gokulnagar in Jamnagar city was his ancestral agricultural land. The land was co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1910; 1966CriLJ1521; 1966MhLJ913(SC); [1966]SuppSCR239
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1965. Appeal from the Judgment and order dated July 9, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 1963. B.Sen and 1. N. Shroff, for the appellant. B.D. Sharma, for the respondents. A.V. Rangam, for Intervener No. 1. V.A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate-General, Kerala, B. R. L. Iyengar, A. G. Pudessery and M. R. K. K. Pillai for Intervener No. 2. B. R. G. K. Achar, for intervener No. 3 The Judgment of SARKAR C.J. and MUDHOLKAR J. was delivered by SARKAR C.J. The Judgment of BACHAWAT and SHELAT JJ. was delivered by BACHAWAT J. HIDAYATULLAH J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Sarkar, C.J. On a complaint of trespass the police registered a case against the respondents under S. 447 of the Penal Code. The respondents were later arrested by the police and released on the execution of surety bonds whereby the sureties undertook to produce them as required by the police. The case against the respondents was thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2008)BC253(SC); 2007CriLJ3735; JT2007(10)SC57; 2008(1)MhLj135; 2007(II)OLR(SC)608; 2007(9)SCALE502; 2007AIRSCW4816; (2007)3Crimes314(SC); 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)2451
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The parties hereto entered into a contract for sale and purchase of welding rods. Appellant allegedly did not pay some amount due from him towards supply of the said article. He issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 3,559/- and Rs. 3,776/- in the year 1983. The said cheques were dishonoured. Alleging that by reason of such act, the appellant has committed offences under Sections 406, 409, 402 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, a complaint petition was filed by the First Respondent in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rampur which was marked CC No. 132 of 1986. The principal allegation made therein against the appellant reads as under:That applicant, regarding these cheques and payment of money, wrote several times to accused and also sent his representative. But he kept on making excuses in making payment. At last he told on 19.12.1985 that he had issued fabricated cheques knowingly with an intention to cheat him and grab his money. He would not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the legality AND propriety of an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in a disposed of Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:The marriage of the appellant AND 1st respondent took place in the year 1997 according to the Muslim rites AND customs AND out of that wedlock three children were born. According to the appellant, 1st respondent married again for a third time. During the subsistence of the appellant's marriage, 1st Respondent kept on harassing the appellant demANDing dowry, which resulted in the lodgment of an F.I.R. by the appellant's brother, being F.I.R. No. 72 of 2003, on 5.8.2003 AND a case was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) AND Sections 3 AND 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against 1st respondent AND his family members. The case was later transferred to the Ladies Police Station, Rakab Ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1567; 1972CriLJ1055; (1972)3SCC793; [1973]1SCR118; 1972(4)LC880(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. There are two matters before this Court. One is an application of the State of Maharashtra and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1970 for extension of time upto 31 March, 1972 for the return of the Commission for examination of some witnesses in West Germany in Criminal Case No. 42/CW of 1962 pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade Courts, Bombay. The other is a writ petition of Mithani challenging the alleged arrangement mentioned in communication dated 13 July, 1971 from the Indian High Commissioner in London to the External Affairs Ministry, Government of India for examination of witnesses in West Germany as infraction of the provisions of Section 504 of the CrPC and as violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.2. One Ram Lal Laxmi Dutta Nanda and 7 others including Mithani were alleged to have committed offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2145; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)798; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)147; 2001CriLJ2346; 2001(2)Crimes226(SC); JT2001(Suppl1)SC245; 2001MPLJ21(SC); 2001(3)SCALE513; (2001)4SCC752; [2001]3SCR2
Phukan, J.1. Leave is granted.2. The respondent has been booked for trial along with another accused for offences punishable under Section 120B 409 468 471 and 477 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the respondent No.1 was that while he was working as the Secretary of Melukavu Grama Panchayat along with another accused, who was the Head Clerk of the Panchayat, committed criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the funds of the Panchayat which was earmarked for construction of waiting sheds, Tribal training centers etc. and misappropriated large amount by creating bogus receipts and bills and thereby committed the above offences. Initially the respondent was placed under suspension and subsequently was allowed to retire from service on attaining superannuation.3. The respondent filed a revision petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Kerala for quashing the said cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC24REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.491 OF2022BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.319 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.326 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.352 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.403 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.422 OF2022JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.Table of Contents Sr. Particulars Page No(s). No.1 Preface 3-5 2 Details of the writ petitioners 5-9 3 Factual Background 9-25 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 Etc. Page 1 of 251 4 Counter affidavit of State of Gujarat 25-47 5 Submissions 47-87 6 Reply Arguments 87-101 7 Points for consideration 101-251 (A) Re: Point No.1: Whether the petition 102-106 filed by one of the victims in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable?. (B) Re: Point No.2: Whether the writ petitions filed as Public Interest 106-117 Litigation (PIL) assailing the impugned orders of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.34 OF2015(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2961 of 2013) |SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.35 OF2015(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3161 of 2013) A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 36-37 OF2015(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3326-3327 of 2013) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted. Introduction: In the year 2008, during the tenure of the then Minister of Telecommunications, Unified Access Services Licenses ("UASL") were granted. After sometime, an information was disclosed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging various forms of irregularities committed in connection with the grant of the said UASL which resulted in huge losses to the public exchequer. On the basis of such source information, the CBI registered a case bearing RC DAI2009A0045o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.129 OF2012Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) & Anr. .....Petitioners versus Union of India & Anr. .Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution raises important and fundamental questions of human rights violations not in the context of the accused but in the context of the victims. Do the next of kin of deceased victims have any rights at all, other than receipt of monetary compensation?.2. The allegations made in the writ petition concern what are described as fake encounters or extra-judicial executions said to have been carried out by the Manipur Police and the armed forces of the Union, including the Army. According to the police and security forces, the encounters are genuine and the victims were militants or terrorists or insurgents killed in counter insurgency or anti terrorist operations. Whether the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.478-479 OF2017Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Appellants Versus The State of Gujarat and Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. This case arises out of a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) that was lodged on 22.12.2009. The FIR is by one Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel, Power-of-Attorney holder of Ramanbhai Bhagubhai Patel and Shankarbhai Bhagubhai Patel, who are allegedly residing at UK or USA. The gravamen of the complaint made in the FIR is that one Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya is blackmailing these two gentlemen with respect to agricultural land which is just outside the city of Surat, Gujarat and which admeasures about 8296 square meters. The FIR alleges that Ramanbhai Patel and Shankarbhai Patel are 1 absolute and independent owners of this land, having obtained it from one Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai and his wife Bhikiben Bhikhabhai in the year 1975. The FIR then nar...
Tag this Judgment!